At 23:46 9/01/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 10, 1999 at 04:10:50PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>> >> 3. The Names Council shall ensure that it will guard the rights of the
>> >> Domain Name holders and registrants by advising ICANN on such
policies that
>> >> will mandate that any delegated Registrar or
>> >> Registering entity adopts procedures guaranteeing fair hearings and due
>> >> process in its Articles, Bylaws or contract documents with second or
third
>> >> level registrants.
>> >>
>>
>> And how do you feel about this last proposed item? Too hot for the DNSO?
>> Unrealistic in view of autonomous dictatorial ccTLD's that even ICANN can't
>> control?
>> Or worth taking on board?
>
>I think it is 1) unnecessary; 2) probably unenforcable, both in the
>context of organizational bylaws, and in the context of
>registrars/registries; and 3) it clouds authority lines -- what if the
>membership disagrees with this?
>
Kent,
Would you care to state why you think guarding the rights of the Domain
Name Holders would now be unnecessary, when you yourself found it necessary
to present a paper on a Bill of Rights at the Monterrrey conference?
Could you elaborate a little more on 2 (unenforceable)?
We cound change the text to affect registries only and since they have in
your scheme a constituency of their own with it's own admission rules,
nothing is easier than to make them pass muster before they are admitted in
their constituency.
If you would (as I hope) do away with your caste system, it is still easy
to make this a requirement for admission of registries.
And how would forcing registries to adopt policies of fairness and Due
Process "cloud authority lines"? I'm listening with interest to hear you
speak further on this.
What if the membership disagrees. Of course the membership has to agree
with the draft bylaws. But who *are* presently the members? Who do you
include? Only the participants of the F2F meetings?
>It would be exactly equivalent to putting in the bylaws a clause that
>states that the NC will put forth policies that implement the WIPO
>recommendations.
>
Well, if that is what a real membership of broad basis would want, well
yes, you could put it in. ;-)
But somehow I think a DN SO would have its membership drawn from the DN
community rather than from WIPO supporters.
--Joop--
http://www.democracy.org.nz/
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
